Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 2 Mar 2009 14:35:18 +0900 | From | KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/4] Memory controller soft limit interface (v3) |
| |
On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 10:16:31 +0530 Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> * KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> [2009-03-02 11:03:23]: > > > On Sun, 01 Mar 2009 12:00:11 +0530 > > Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > From: Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > > > > > > Changelog v2...v1 > > > 1. Add support for res_counter_check_soft_limit_locked. This is used > > > by the hierarchy code. > > > > > > Add an interface to allow get/set of soft limits. Soft limits for memory plus > > > swap controller (memsw) is currently not supported. Resource counters have > > > been enhanced to support soft limits and new type RES_SOFT_LIMIT has been > > > added. Unlike hard limits, soft limits can be directly set and do not > > > need any reclaim or checks before setting them to a newer value. > > > > > > Kamezawa-San raised a question as to whether soft limit should belong > > > to res_counter. Since all resources understand the basic concepts of > > > hard and soft limits, it is justified to add soft limits here. Soft limits > > > are a generic resource usage feature, even file system quotas support > > > soft limits. > > > > > I don't convice adding more logics to res_counter is a good to do, yet. > > > > Even though it is extensible and you pay the cost only when soft > limits is turned on? Can you show me why you are not convinced? > Inserting more codes (like "if") to res_counter itself is not welcome.. I think res_counter is too complex as counter already.
I'm now searching a way to reduce res_counter->lock ping-pong but have no good idea.
Thanks, -Kame
| |